I think there is a problem with the multiverse explanation for fine-tuning. It completely destroys probability. Imagine I won the lottery 10 times. Now, imagine to explain this, someone said:

"Well, you see, in the infinite multiverse, there are an infinite amount of yourself playing the lottery. In at least one of them you are going to win 10 lotteries by chance alone (in some universes you will win the lottery 20 times!). We just so happen to occupy the universe in which you won 10 times. Nothing to see here."

You would laugh at them. Clearly someone "fixed" the game. Why would we accept the multiverse hypothesis to explain away the improbable constant values, but we wouldn't use it to explain someone winning the lottery 10 times?

Another problem is, even if there is a multiverse, why would there have to be enough to make ours probable by chance? Maybe the multiverse only has 50 universes, or 100. Why would there have to be enough to make a universe with our constants probable by chance? Even if the multiverse hypothesis isn't ad hoc, the idea that there are just the right amount to make our universe probable is. We would need an outrageous amount of universes.

At 12/27/2013 12:46:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think there is a problem with the multiverse explanation for fine-tuning. It completely destroys probability. Imagine I won the lottery 10 times. Now, imagine to explain this, someone said:

"Well, you see, in the infinite multiverse, there are an infinite amount of yourself playing the lottery. In at least one of them you are going to win 10 lotteries by chance alone (in some universes you will win the lottery 20 times!). We just so happen to occupy the universe in which you won 10 times. Nothing to see here."

You would laugh at them. Clearly someone "fixed" the game. Why would we accept the multiverse hypothesis to explain away the improbable constant values, but we wouldn't use it to explain someone winning the lottery 10 times?

Another problem is, even if there is a multiverse, why would there have to be enough to make ours probable by chance? Maybe the multiverse only has 50 universes, or 100. Why would there have to be enough to make a universe with our constants probable by chance? Even if the multiverse hypothesis isn't ad hoc, the idea that there are just the right amount to make our universe probable is. We would need an outrageous amount of universes.

Nice post (as usual), I couldn't agree more more. My biggest problem with the multiverse theory has always been - as you said - it seems ad hoc., but these are really good points as well. Well put, thank you.

I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

At 12/27/2013 12:46:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think there is a problem with the multiverse explanation for fine-tuning. It completely destroys probability. Imagine I won the lottery 10 times. Now, imagine to explain this, someone said:

"Well, you see, in the infinite multiverse, there are an infinite amount of yourself playing the lottery. In at least one of them you are going to win 10 lotteries by chance alone (in some universes you will win the lottery 20 times!). We just so happen to occupy the universe in which you won 10 times. Nothing to see here."

You would laugh at them. Clearly someone "fixed" the game. Why would we accept the multiverse hypothesis to explain away the improbable constant values, but we wouldn't use it to explain someone winning the lottery 10 times?

Another problem is, even if there is a multiverse, why would there have to be enough to make ours probable by chance? Maybe the multiverse only has 50 universes, or 100. Why would there have to be enough to make a universe with our constants probable by chance? Even if the multiverse hypothesis isn't ad hoc, the idea that there are just the right amount to make our universe probable is. We would need an outrageous amount of universes.

Nice post (as usual), I couldn't agree more more. My biggest problem with the multiverse theory has always been - as you said - it seems ad hoc., but these are really good points as well. Well put, thank you.

I'm not saying that the multiverse theory is ad hoc, just that positing a multiverse with enough universes to make ours existing probable by chance is ad hoc. It is how many universes that need to be posited that is ad hoc, not the multiverse theory itself.

At 12/27/2013 12:46:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think there is a problem with the multiverse explanation for fine-tuning. It completely destroys probability. Imagine I won the lottery 10 times. Now, imagine to explain this, someone said:

"Well, you see, in the infinite multiverse, there are an infinite amount of yourself playing the lottery. In at least one of them you are going to win 10 lotteries by chance alone (in some universes you will win the lottery 20 times!). We just so happen to occupy the universe in which you won 10 times. Nothing to see here."

You would laugh at them. Clearly someone "fixed" the game. Why would we accept the multiverse hypothesis to explain away the improbable constant values, but we wouldn't use it to explain someone winning the lottery 10 times?

Another problem is, even if there is a multiverse, why would there have to be enough to make ours probable by chance? Maybe the multiverse only has 50 universes, or 100. Why would there have to be enough to make a universe with our constants probable by chance? Even if the multiverse hypothesis isn't ad hoc, the idea that there are just the right amount to make our universe probable is. We would need an outrageous amount of universes.

Nice post (as usual), I couldn't agree more more. My biggest problem with the multiverse theory has always been - as you said - it seems ad hoc., but these are really good points as well. Well put, thank you.

I'm not saying that the multiverse theory is ad hoc, just that positing a multiverse with enough universes to make ours existing probable by chance is ad hoc. It is how many universes that need to be posited that is ad hoc, not the multiverse theory itself.

My bad, I misread. But personally, the multiverse theory has always seemed ad-hoc. even without that. But your point does make it much stronger.

I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

At 12/27/2013 12:46:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think there is a problem with the multiverse explanation for fine-tuning. It completely destroys probability. Imagine I won the lottery 10 times. Now, imagine to explain this, someone said:

"Well, you see, in the infinite multiverse, there are an infinite amount of yourself playing the lottery. In at least one of them you are going to win 10 lotteries by chance alone (in some universes you will win the lottery 20 times!). We just so happen to occupy the universe in which you won 10 times. Nothing to see here."

You would laugh at them. Clearly someone "fixed" the game. Why would we accept the multiverse hypothesis to explain away the improbable constant values, but we wouldn't use it to explain someone winning the lottery 10 times?

Another problem is, even if there is a multiverse, why would there have to be enough to make ours probable by chance? Maybe the multiverse only has 50 universes, or 100. Why would there have to be enough to make a universe with our constants probable by chance? Even if the multiverse hypothesis isn't ad hoc, the idea that there are just the right amount to make our universe probable is. We would need an outrageous amount of universes.

Nice post (as usual), I couldn't agree more more. My biggest problem with the multiverse theory has always been - as you said - it seems ad hoc., but these are really good points as well. Well put, thank you.

I'm not saying that the multiverse theory is ad hoc, just that positing a multiverse with enough universes to make ours existing probable by chance is ad hoc. It is how many universes that need to be posited that is ad hoc, not the multiverse theory itself.

My bad, I misread. But personally, the multiverse theory has always seemed ad-hoc. even without that. But your point does make it much stronger.

The multiverse theory cashes out from the Theory of Inflation (which is widely accepted). It is also a feature of most string theory and loop quantum gravity models (the best candidates we have right now at uniting relativity with quantum mechanics). This means, that the multiverse theory isn't ad hoc with regards to the fine-tuning of the universe, because there are external reasons to think there is a multiverse that have nothing to do with fine-tuning.

The fact that the multiverse is implied by modern physics and cosmology is why scientists mostly believe in it.

If the mutliverse idea only existed to explain away fine-tuning, then yes, it would be ad hoc. However, that is not the case.

At 12/27/2013 12:46:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think there is a problem with the multiverse explanation for fine-tuning. It completely destroys probability. Imagine I won the lottery 10 times. Now, imagine to explain this, someone said:

"Well, you see, in the infinite multiverse, there are an infinite amount of yourself playing the lottery. In at least one of them you are going to win 10 lotteries by chance alone (in some universes you will win the lottery 20 times!). We just so happen to occupy the universe in which you won 10 times. Nothing to see here."

You would laugh at them. Clearly someone "fixed" the game. Why would we accept the multiverse hypothesis to explain away the improbable constant values, but we wouldn't use it to explain someone winning the lottery 10 times?

Another problem is, even if there is a multiverse, why would there have to be enough to make ours probable by chance? Maybe the multiverse only has 50 universes, or 100. Why would there have to be enough to make a universe with our constants probable by chance? Even if the multiverse hypothesis isn't ad hoc, the idea that there are just the right amount to make our universe probable is. We would need an outrageous amount of universes.

On this one you and I seem to totally agree. :) I've always felt this way about the MV, although I don't have the faith in string theory which you seem to have according to a post further-down. According to theoretical physicist Lee Smolin, "Much effort has been put into string theory in the past twenty years, but we still do not know whether it is true. Even after all this work the theory makes no new predictions that are testable by current (or even currently conceivable) experiments. The few clean predictions it does make have already been made by other well-accepted theories."

At 12/27/2013 12:46:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think there is a problem with the multiverse explanation for fine-tuning. It completely destroys probability. Imagine I won the lottery 10 times. Now, imagine to explain this, someone said:

"Well, you see, in the infinite multiverse, there are an infinite amount of yourself playing the lottery. In at least one of them you are going to win 10 lotteries by chance alone (in some universes you will win the lottery 20 times!). We just so happen to occupy the universe in which you won 10 times. Nothing to see here."

You would laugh at them. Clearly someone "fixed" the game. Why would we accept the multiverse hypothesis to explain away the improbable constant values, but we wouldn't use it to explain someone winning the lottery 10 times?

Another problem is, even if there is a multiverse, why would there have to be enough to make ours probable by chance? Maybe the multiverse only has 50 universes, or 100. Why would there have to be enough to make a universe with our constants probable by chance? Even if the multiverse hypothesis isn't ad hoc, the idea that there are just the right amount to make our universe probable is. We would need an outrageous amount of universes.

On this one you and I seem to totally agree. :) I've always felt this way about the MV, although I don't have the faith in string theory which you seem to have according to a post further-down. According to theoretical physicist Lee Smolin, "Much effort has been put into string theory in the past twenty years, but we still do not know whether it is true. Even after all this work the theory makes no new predictions that are testable by current (or even currently conceivable) experiments. The few clean predictions it does make have already been made by other well-accepted theories."

But The Theory Inflation does predict multiple pocket universes, and that has made many predictions which has lead to the theory being widely accepted. Even if one views string theory as just clever speculation, surely you cannot say the same about the Theory of Inflation! This theory by Alan Guth is supported by the evidence to an incredible extent.... The question is, why think there are enough universes to make a universe with all the physical constant values we have plausible? That would take a lot of universes.....

At 12/27/2013 12:46:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think there is a problem with the multiverse explanation for fine-tuning. It completely destroys probability. Imagine I won the lottery 10 times. Now, imagine to explain this, someone said:

"Well, you see, in the infinite multiverse, there are an infinite amount of yourself playing the lottery. In at least one of them you are going to win 10 lotteries by chance alone (in some universes you will win the lottery 20 times!). We just so happen to occupy the universe in which you won 10 times. Nothing to see here."

You would laugh at them. Clearly someone "fixed" the game. Why would we accept the multiverse hypothesis to explain away the improbable constant values, but we wouldn't use it to explain someone winning the lottery 10 times?

Another problem is, even if there is a multiverse, why would there have to be enough to make ours probable by chance? Maybe the multiverse only has 50 universes, or 100. Why would there have to be enough to make a universe with our constants probable by chance? Even if the multiverse hypothesis isn't ad hoc, the idea that there are just the right amount to make our universe probable is. We would need an outrageous amount of universes.

On this one you and I seem to totally agree. :) I've always felt this way about the MV, although I don't have the faith in string theory which you seem to have according to a post further-down. According to theoretical physicist Lee Smolin, "Much effort has been put into string theory in the past twenty years, but we still do not know whether it is true. Even after all this work the theory makes no new predictions that are testable by current (or even currently conceivable) experiments. The few clean predictions it does make have already been made by other well-accepted theories."

But The Theory Inflation does predict multiple pocket universes, and that has made many predictions which has lead to the theory being widely accepted. Even if one views string theory as just clever speculation, surely you cannot say the same about the Theory of Inflation! This theory by Alan Guth is supported by the evidence to an incredible extent.... The question is, why think there are enough universes to make a universe with all the physical constant values we have plausible? That would take a lot of universes.....

You are right. It has made many predictions, none of which have been shown to be true. It has also become widely popular, because it's the only real candidate there is right now. That's like accepting the existence of God because you can't explain reality scientifically - acceptance by default. More and more physicists are losing their patience, too. Lee Smolin has written a book on it: The Trouble With Physics. I'm reading it now. The fact is that physical science has not made a single major breakthrough in the past thirty years, the first time that such a thing has happened in four centuries. In the 1800s it was commonly believed that all that could be discovered about physics had been discovered, but that was proven wrong by the likes of Einstein. According to Smolin, his generation of physicists have failed to make a single contribution to physics that is likely to outlast them.

At 12/27/2013 12:46:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think there is a problem with the multiverse explanation for fine-tuning. It completely destroys probability. Imagine I won the lottery 10 times. Now, imagine to explain this, someone said:

"Well, you see, in the infinite multiverse, there are an infinite amount of yourself playing the lottery. In at least one of them you are going to win 10 lotteries by chance alone (in some universes you will win the lottery 20 times!). We just so happen to occupy the universe in which you won 10 times. Nothing to see here."

You would laugh at them. Clearly someone "fixed" the game. Why would we accept the multiverse hypothesis to explain away the improbable constant values, but we wouldn't use it to explain someone winning the lottery 10 times?

Another problem is, even if there is a multiverse, why would there have to be enough to make ours probable by chance? Maybe the multiverse only has 50 universes, or 100. Why would there have to be enough to make a universe with our constants probable by chance? Even if the multiverse hypothesis isn't ad hoc, the idea that there are just the right amount to make our universe probable is. We would need an outrageous amount of universes.

On this one you and I seem to totally agree. :) I've always felt this way about the MV, although I don't have the faith in string theory which you seem to have according to a post further-down. According to theoretical physicist Lee Smolin, "Much effort has been put into string theory in the past twenty years, but we still do not know whether it is true. Even after all this work the theory makes no new predictions that are testable by current (or even currently conceivable) experiments. The few clean predictions it does make have already been made by other well-accepted theories."

But The Theory Inflation does predict multiple pocket universes, and that has made many predictions which has lead to the theory being widely accepted. Even if one views string theory as just clever speculation, surely you cannot say the same about the Theory of Inflation! This theory by Alan Guth is supported by the evidence to an incredible extent.... The question is, why think there are enough universes to make a universe with all the physical constant values we have plausible? That would take a lot of universes.....

You are right. It has made many predictions, none of which have been shown to be true. It has also become widely popular, because it's the only real candidate there is right now.

This is just absolutely false. All of the predictions of the Theory of Inflation that have been tested show the predictions to be true.

"While the detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is not known, the basic picture makes a number of predictions that have been confirmed" http://en.wikipedia.org...(cosmology)

The Cosmic Microwave Background show fluctuations that confirm inflation. It is the most widely accepted theory because it is best supported by the evidence.

That's like accepting the existence of God because you can't explain reality scientifically - acceptance by default.

It is not by default. Inflation has made predictions that have been confirmed, and that would be unlikely to be confirmed if Inflation was false.

More and more physicists are losing their patience, too. Lee Smolin has written a book on it: The Trouble With Physics. I'm reading it now. The fact is that physical science has not made a single major breakthrough in the past thirty years, the first time that such a thing has happened in four centuries.

This all depends on what you define as a "breakthrough". I personally think Anton Ziegler's new quantum eraser experiment from 2012 is a breakthrough, as it makes certain interpretations of QM implausible, that were once thought to be tenable.

In the 1800s it was commonly believed that all that could be discovered about physics had been discovered, but that was proven wrong by the likes of Einstein. According to Smolin, his generation of physicists have failed to make a single contribution to physics that is likely to outlast them.

Inflation was presented by Alan Guth in 1981, which is only a decade or so off from 30 years ago lol Cosmologists view that as a major contribution to science.

At 12/27/2013 12:46:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think there is a problem with the multiverse explanation for fine-tuning. It completely destroys probability. Imagine I won the lottery 10 times. Now, imagine to explain this, someone said:

"Well, you see, in the infinite multiverse, there are an infinite amount of yourself playing the lottery. In at least one of them you are going to win 10 lotteries by chance alone (in some universes you will win the lottery 20 times!). We just so happen to occupy the universe in which you won 10 times. Nothing to see here."

You would laugh at them. Clearly someone "fixed" the game. Why would we accept the multiverse hypothesis to explain away the improbable constant values, but we wouldn't use it to explain someone winning the lottery 10 times?

Another problem is, even if there is a multiverse, why would there have to be enough to make ours probable by chance? Maybe the multiverse only has 50 universes, or 100. Why would there have to be enough to make a universe with our constants probable by chance? Even if the multiverse hypothesis isn't ad hoc, the idea that there are just the right amount to make our universe probable is. We would need an outrageous amount of universes.

On this one you and I seem to totally agree. :) I've always felt this way about the MV, although I don't have the faith in string theory which you seem to have according to a post further-down. According to theoretical physicist Lee Smolin, "Much effort has been put into string theory in the past twenty years, but we still do not know whether it is true. Even after all this work the theory makes no new predictions that are testable by current (or even currently conceivable) experiments. The few clean predictions it does make have already been made by other well-accepted theories."

But The Theory Inflation does predict multiple pocket universes, and that has made many predictions which has lead to the theory being widely accepted. Even if one views string theory as just clever speculation, surely you cannot say the same about the Theory of Inflation! This theory by Alan Guth is supported by the evidence to an incredible extent.... The question is, why think there are enough universes to make a universe with all the physical constant values we have plausible? That would take a lot of universes.....

You are right. It has made many predictions, none of which have been shown to be true. It has also become widely popular, because it's the only real candidate there is right now. That's like accepting the existence of God because you can't explain reality scientifically - acceptance by default. More and more physicists are losing their patience, too. Lee Smolin has written a book on it: The Trouble With Physics. I'm reading it now. The fact is that physical science has not made a single major breakthrough in the past thirty years, the first time that such a thing has happened in four centuries. In the 1800s it was commonly believed that all that could be discovered about physics had been discovered, but that was proven wrong by the likes of Einstein. According to Smolin, his generation of physicists have failed to make a single contribution to physics that is likely to outlast them.

The site won't let me quote the wikipedia page, but type in "Inflation Cosmology". Here NASA page [http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...]. NASA explains that inflation solves many problems in cosmology, and not only that, the predictions it made turned out to be true. It is the most reasonable theory based on everything we know about the cosmos. To dismiss it would be foolish, and it is not a default position. It is backed up by the data, and the fact that it fits perfectly with what we know, and requires no ad hoc work. These are the signs of a good theory! It has stood the test of time.

At 12/27/2013 12:46:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think there is a problem with the multiverse explanation for fine-tuning. It completely destroys probability. Imagine I won the lottery 10 times. Now, imagine to explain this, someone said:

"Well, you see, in the infinite multiverse, there are an infinite amount of yourself playing the lottery. In at least one of them you are going to win 10 lotteries by chance alone (in some universes you will win the lottery 20 times!). We just so happen to occupy the universe in which you won 10 times. Nothing to see here."

You would laugh at them. Clearly someone "fixed" the game. Why would we accept the multiverse hypothesis to explain away the improbable constant values, but we wouldn't use it to explain someone winning the lottery 10 times?

If I am reading your right, this is the whole, you wouldn't accept some one playing cards getting a royal flush 5 times in a row by "chance" you wouldn't accept some one winning the lottery 10, 20 times by "chance" in both cases you would suspect the game was rigged, ergo we should suspect that the improbable constant values of the universe which allow for some life to form (ie us) is rigged.

"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12